https://hull-repository.worktribe.com/preview/1797952/1-s2.0-S0140673618322797-main.pdf

Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016

世界経済・社会統計 = World development indicators

XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes

https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/164632/2/01_Bin%2bSayeed_Global%252C_regional%252C_and_national_2018.pdf

Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, andyears lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematicanalysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/ws/files/259213304/PIIS0140673620309259.pdf

Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Cancer care and research in India: what does it mean to Nepal?

Background Regulatory approval of oncology drugs is often based on interim data or surrogate endpoints. However, clinically relevant data, such as long-term overall survival and quality of life (QoL), are often reported in subsequent publications. This study evaluated the ASCO-Value Framework (ASCO-VF) net health benefit (NHB) at the time of approval and over time as further evidence arose. Methods FDA-approved oncology drug indications from January 2006 to December 2016 were reviewed to identify clinical trials scorable using the ASCO-VF. Subsequent publications of clinical trials relevant for scoring were identified (until December 2019). Using ASCO-defined thresholds (≤40 for low and ≥45 for substantial benefit), we assessed changes in classification of benefit at 3 years postapproval. Results Fifty-five eligible indications were included. At FDA approval, 40.0% were substantial, 10.9% were intermediate, and 49.1% were low benefit. We then identified 90 subsequent publications relevant to scoring, including primary (28.9%) and secondary endpoint updates (47.8%), safety updates (31.1%), and QoL reporting (47.8%). There was a change from initial classification of benefit in 27.3% of trials (10.9% became substantial, 9.1% became low, and 7.3% became intermediate). These changes were mainly due to updated hazard ratios (36.4%), toxicities (56.4%), new tail-of-the-curve bonus (9.1%), palliation bonus (14.5%), or QoL bonus (18.2%). Overall, at 3 years postapproval, 40.0% were substantial, 9.1% were intermediate, and 50.9% were low benefit. Conclusions Because there were changes in classification for more than one-quarter of indications, in either direction, reassessing the ASCO-VF NHB as more evidence becomes available may be beneficial to inform clinical shared decision-making. On average, there was no overall improvement in the ASCO-VF NHB with longer follow-up and evolution of evidence.

/pdf/reassessing-the-net-benefit-of-cancer-drugs-with-evolution-3epj5rk3i4.pdf

Reassessing the Net Benefit of Cancer Drugs With Evolution of Evidence Using the ASCO Value Framework.

6573Background: QoL outcomes provide essential information for patients and physicians in oncology care, but these data are not always reported in pivotal trials of new therapies. We investigated t...

Prevalence of quality of life(QoL) outcomes and association with survival in cancer clinical trials.

Umbrella clinical trials in precision oncology are designed to tailor therapies to the specific genetic changes within a tumor. Little is known about the risk/benefit ratio for umbrella clinical trials. The aim of our systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles in cancer umbrella trials testing targeted drugs or a combination of targeted therapy with chemotherapy.Our study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020171494). We searched Embase and PubMed for cancer umbrella trials testing targeted agents or a combination of targeted therapies with chemotherapy. We included solid tumor studies published between 1 January 2006 and 7 October 2019. We measured the risk using drug-related grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs), and the benefit by objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). When possible, data were meta-analyzed.Of the 6207 records identified, we included 31 sub-trials or arms of nine umbrella trials (N = 1637). The pooled overall ORR was 17.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.5-25.9). The ORR for targeted therapies in the experimental arms was significantly lower than the ORR for a combination of targeted therapy drugs with chemotherapy: 13.3% vs 39.0%; p = 0.005. The median PFS was 2.4 months (95% CI 1.9-2.9), and the median OS was 7.1 months (95% CI 6.1-8.4). The overall drug-related death rate (drug-related grade 5 AEs rate) was 0.8% (95% CI 0.3-1.4), and the average drug-related grade 3/4 AE rate per person was 0.45 (95% CI 0.40-0.50).Our findings suggest that, on average, one in five cancer patients in umbrella trials published between 1 January 2006 and 7 October 2019 responded to a given therapy, while one in 125 died due to drug toxicity. Our findings do not support the expectation of increased patient benefit in cancer umbrella trials. Further studies should investigate whether umbrella trial design and the precision oncology approach improve patient outcomes. 

/pdf/risk-and-benefit-for-umbrella-trials-in-oncology-a-18vpl9yh.pdf

Bishal Gyawali

Papers

Cancer care and research in India: what does it mean to Nepal?

Reassessing the Net Benefit of Cancer Drugs With Evolution of Evidence Using the ASCO Value Framework.

Prevalence of quality of life(QoL) outcomes and association with survival in cancer clinical trials.

Risk and benefit for umbrella trials in oncology: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Repurposing non-cancer drugs for Breast Cancer? An emerging opportunity